Mar 14, 2016 11:39 AM (in response to george_smith)
George, that seems a huge question and the answer depends on a lot of other answers, specifically:
• How many people at your company?
• How many of those are desktop users versus how many are mobile users (Laptops, iPads, etc)?
• What is you typical PC Refresh timeframe, 3 years, 5 years, something different?
• Does your company have a conservative or aggressive OS update schedule?
• Do you use VMware or Citrix for desktop hosting?
• What is your budget? [most important]
I would love to see NUCs rolled out across our company Desktop Users and attach to the back of the monitors. It would save desk space, power, etc. We spoke about it at length at our budget & planning meetings for 2016 but we decided against it this cycle. Possible in 2018 on our next refresh. The issue wasn't cost or capability, but user perceptions.
Never had a problem with any of the NUCs. I have four of them in 24/7 continuous use 2 x i3's, 1-i5 and 1-i7 for the past 18 months.
I think your comments are disingenuous simply because MTBF on desktop pc's, laptops and NUCs are rated using statistical averaging, but it doesn't mean that all or most have issues. Some fail sooner than others and some don't fail for a very long time after they passed the MTBF. For example, I've had two 3TB drives (same model) fail within two days of each other. One was manufactured a year earlier than the other. I also agree that there could be manufacturing defects in the NUC kit itself and those are very challenging to withdraw from the market and recover the brand and reputation.
If there were a huge number of NUCs failing early or out of box - in the market place - and I mean statistically more significant than how often laptops, tablets and PCs fail early, then I think there would be a huge amount of news about it. I've trolled the news/blogs out there and that level of coverage or interest doesn't exist across the entire NUC brand, which is what you implied.
1) The company is a small business with 3 employees.
2) All are desktop users.
3) I don’t have any particular scheduled PC refresh time. If the computer’s performance is adequate at the time of purchase, I typically don’t replace it until I have to, such as when the OS support for it ends or in the event of a major malfunction.
4) We have a conservative OS update schedule.
5) I don’t use desktop hosting.
6) Time is money for me, so for the sake of adequate office productivity, the budget is not an issue. I don’t want to lose in time what I’ll possibly gain in money, through unreasonable savings on incompetent hardware. I know for sure that NUC6i3SYK is a top of the line mini PC that’s definitely suitable for standard office use. What I have doubts about is the NUC5CPYH model.
I accept that you have doubts about that model and I encourage you to continue considering others. I think that the new NUCs may need a bit more "burn-in" time. At least that's the approach I recommend. Typically if the BIOS hasn't been updated once, it's a sign to me to wait or consider another option. With that said, I haven't checked. The bleeding edge works only if it "works" and does not interrupt operations.
I don't suggest for a moment that I've experienced any issues with any Intel NUC product, likely because I have waited and with Intel being excellent at fixing the key BIOS issues when they come up. If there's a lot of bad press that is relevant (and current) on a model, it's definitely something I would look at from various angles to at least understand if the crux of the issues are specific to the motherboard and motherboard-level components or faulty SDD, eSATA, memory, IR, and WiFi/Bluetooth components.
These systems are typically "bundled" by configuration companies who resell. It's a way to getting a better "tweaked" system depending on what you want to do. Personally I prefer sourcing and assembling all of the components based on the specs provided by Intel. It's a bit costlier but I don't have any rework that way with faulty or mismatched components. Intel's spec's on the NUCs are hands down excellent.
It definitely seems to me you know what you're looking for. I think it would be cool to know what you decided on and how that goes for you.
Both models are excellent for the applications that you are planning to run. Now, you mentioned; they will be implemented in your office, so I will suggest you the 6i3SYK, it is faster and better graphics so it will support future demanding software without any issue.